We read with interest the study by Joshipura and colleagues (1), which reported that the consumption of one addi-tional daily serving of fruit or vegetables (beyond the median level of consumption) was associated with a 4% reduction in coronary events. Relative terms often do not give a good sense of the benefit of interventions. Increasingly, there is a call for the use of absolute numbers, such as the number needed to treat for benefit (NNTB), as a way of addressing the “clinical bottom line” when interpreting the results of clinical studies (2). In applying this concept to the study by Joshipura and colleagues, we recognized that the NNTB may not adequately convey the magnitude of the behavioral change required to prevent one event. As an alternative, we propose a new term, the number needed to eat for benefit, or NNEB.